The Coalition of Expensive Chaos

[silkyman]

When the parties who are so against abortion start to give more of a shit what happens to the kid once it's spat out into the world and isn't fortunate enough to end up in a loving stable family who don't need any support from the state I'll start to take their total devotion to the sanctity of life more seriously.

Rees-Mogg believes in the sanctity of all life, unless that life is a brown child fleeing a warzone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39131617

 

[silkyman]

Did that 50 page religion thread get deleted or something? We've been through all this shit.

 

[silkyman]

Erm. We do know how the pyramids were built, dude.

https://www.livescience.com/32616-how-were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-.html

 

[shane]

He's taking the piss.

Yeah. I got it after the "Devil Life" post.

 

[Abertawe]

Erm. We do know how the pyramids were built, dude.

https://www.livescience.com/32616-how-were-the-egyptian-pyramids-built-.html

What a load of baloney.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Bunch of men pontificating on when and how women should be allowed an abortion. Fml

Quite. Think it's pretty offensive for men to try to dictate what a woman does with her body, tbh. And R-M's absolutist moral stance on something that's often an extremely traumatic and difficult experience suggests he's devoid of both critical thinking and empathy and, as such, pretty much unworthy of anyone's respect.

Re ssm - I dunno why there are never any searching followup questions when MPs are quizzed on the issue. The question of an MP's religious beliefs ought not come into the equation as they weren't voting on whether same sex couples ought to be allowed to marry in a religious setting (that's still something which gay couples can't do, unless they belong to an uncommonly tolerant denomination). If they believe that marriage is a purely religious institution then the whole notion of civil marriage (that opposite sex couples have been able to enter into for eons) should greatly affront them, but they always seem curiously relaxed about the matter! It's almost as though people of Mogg's ilk are homophobes as well as misogynists!

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Quite. Think it's pretty offensive for men to try to dictate what a woman does with her body, tbh. [...]

What the woman does to her body is not the issue to be fair, what we're talking about is she does to the body inside her own. This isn't as clear cut as anyone would like it to be, and there are absolutist positions on both sides. There are radical feminists for example that believe that women should be able to abort all the way until the moment of birth.

 

[Abertawe]

Quite. Think it's pretty offensive for men to try to dictate what a woman does with her body, tbh.

Once a woman conceives a supreme being of creation her right to 'dictate her body' is surrendered until safe passage of her delivery. If she doesn't wish to keep the child that's okay but once conception has occured it automatically becomes a microcosm of the universe and as such deserves the right to explore it until it's own natural end. Somewhere along the line we've gotten it twisted and turned the most magnificent thing known to mankind into a lifestyle choice. It goes against the natural order and everything we understand about human evolution. All religious scriptures at their foundation call for the protection of human life and a big no to conceived self destruction. On that they are not wrong.

It doesn't mean your some american wacko to call out abortion as wrong. Everything that has forged us tells us it is. There is only cultural opinion to present as an argument for pro choice. It's not a natural tendency to self-destruct. Homosexuality is a natural tendency, not identifying with your assigned gender is a natural tendency. Self destruction is not. If we are looking at this objectively abortion is wrong in almost all circumstances. It should only extend to rape and medical issues as I've said previously. We should use the science to give women the choice when the circumstance has arose from them not being given a choice. I don't accept that rape is a cultural preference, it's an abnormal behaviour and as such we are justified to use our knowledge to counteract it if that's what the woman chooses to do.

The wrong uns are those saying abortion is okay. I'm sorry if that offends but it is the truth.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Once a woman conceives a supreme being of creation her right to 'dictate her body' is surrendered until safe passage of her delivery. If she doesn't wish to keep the child that's okay but once conception has occured it automatically becomes a microcosm of the universe and as such deserves the right to explore it until it's own natural end. Somewhere along the line we've gotten it twisted and turned the most magnificent thing known to mankind into a lifestyle choice. It goes against the natural order and everything we understand about human evolution. All religious scriptures at their foundation call for the protection of human life and a big no to conceived self destruction. On that they are not wrong.

It doesn't mean your some american wacko to call out abortion as wrong. Everything that has forged us tells us it is. There is only cultural opinion to present as an argument for pro choice. It's not a natural tendency to self-destruct. Homosexuality is a natural tendency, not identifying with your assigned gender is a natural tendency. Self destruction is not. If we are looking at this objectively abortion is wrong in almost all circumstances. It should only extend to rape and medical issues as I've said previously. We should use the science to give women the choice when the circumstance has arose from them not being given a choice. I don't accept that rape is a cultural preference, it's an abnormal behaviour and as such we are justified to use our knowledge to counteract it if that's what the woman chooses to do.

The wrong uns are those saying abortion is okay. I'm sorry if that offends but it is the truth.

Let me pose you a conundrum.

If abortion was more readily accessible for any reason you fancy you may never had endure Bob Bradley as manager.

Think about it.

 

[Abertawe]

Let me pose you a conundrum.

If abortion was more readily accessible for any reason you fancy you may never had endure Bob Bradley as manager.

Think about it.

Bradley allows us to appreciate Clement more. The universe is fluid like that.

 

[Jockney]

What the woman does to her body is not the issue to be fair, what we're talking about is she does to the body inside her own. This isn't as clear cut as anyone would like it to be, and there are absolutist positions on both sides. There are radical feminists for example that believe that women should be able to abort all the way until the moment of birth.

You'd stand in the middle of incoming traffic and shout to people that they're pavement extremists.

 

[Aber gas]

Can't see super duper Catholic he-man Mogg getting on great with the DUP. They've got similar views on stuff but considering several members of the DUP reckon the pope is the antichrist it could be a tad frosty.
Forza Moggmentum.

 

[Aber gas]

The Tory party lost 7 from 8 council elections last night.
Absolutely seen off.

 

[Abertawe]

Belting PMQ performance by Jezza. Hopefully government defeat later on too.

 

[Aber gas]

Belting PMQ performance by Jezza. Hopefully government defeat later on too.

There’s talk of the DUP voting against the government.

 

[Abertawe]

There’s talk of the DUP voting against the government.

There's talk of Tories voting against the government. If they lose a leadership challenge can't be far away.

 

[Abertawe]

Tories supposedly instructed to abstain.

 

[silkyman]

They should hold another one, wait for all the Tories to abstain and then add ‘cough, oh and we’re revoking article 50, cough’

 

[silkyman]

Michael Fallon: ‘Stop being negative about Saudi Arabia killing civilians... We want to sell them weapons do do it with’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-urges-mps-prioritise-arms-sales-human-rights

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

There does seem to be something of a disturbing tendency within government / the Conservative Party to actively want to stifle debate, shy away from uncomfortable truths and generally avoid any sort of scrutiny and oversight of what they're doing. You see it in that Fallon comment (the reason why he thinks people should refrain from criticism basically seems to be that it's jolly inconvenient!) and we've already seen it a number of times with Brexit. With regard to the latter we've so far had the government wanting to avoid any sort of parliamentary showdown prior to the triggering of A50, we've had Andrea Leadsom insisting that broadcasters ought to be more patriotic, we've had David Davies failing to give any assurances as to whether MPs will actually get a vote on the final deal prior to us Brexiting and we've had some other plank sending a weird, rather sinister letter to universities in an attempt to ascertain what students are being taught (said plank is also one of the most vocal about not releasing the Brexit impact assessments, so make of that what you will). It's all rather concerning as a) much of the media aren't going to give these issues the scrutiny they deserve b) those convinced of the strength of their argument will usually be happy to try to rebuff criticism using reason and evidence, not swat it aside because it's unpatriotic / contrary to the will of the people / detrimental to our arms trade. The government's actions at the moment only really serve to illustrate that their opponents have some very good criticisms to make.

 

[Aber gas]

There does seem to be something of a disturbing tendency within government / the Conservative Party to actively want to stifle debate, shy away from uncomfortable truths and generally avoid any sort of scrutiny and oversight of what they're doing. You see it in that Fallon comment (the reason why he thinks people should refrain from criticism basically seems to be that it's jolly inconvenient!) and we've already seen it a number of times with Brexit. With regard to the latter we've so far had the government wanting to avoid any sort of parliamentary showdown prior to the triggering of A50, we've had Andrea Leadsom insisting that broadcasters ought to be more patriotic, we've had David Davies failing to give any assurances as to whether MPs will actually get a vote on the final deal prior to us Brexiting and we've had some other plank sending a weird, rather sinister letter to universities in an attempt to ascertain what students are being taught (said plank is also one of the most vocal about not releasing the Brexit impact assessments, so make of that what you will). It's all rather concerning as a) much of the media aren't going to give these issues the scrutiny they deserve b) those convinced of the strength of their argument will usually be happy to try to rebuff criticism using reason and evidence, not swat it aside because it's unpatriotic / contrary to the will of the people / detrimental to our arms trade. The government's actions at the moment only really serve to illustrate that their opponents have some very good criticisms to make.

They’re done. They’re a laughing stock. They’re polling mid thirties and hate each other. The only thing uniting them currently is the fear of being smashed by Corbyn. I predicted another general election in October and I was wrong but this won’t last another 6 months.

 

[Laker]

The Tories are pretty shocking for this at the moment though I would add the Labour Party aren't innocent in stifling debate, like when they omitted Brexit from their party conference as apparently it's not one of the biggest eight political issues at the moment: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-jeremy-corbyn-momentum-speech-a7965186.html

There seems to be an unwillingness for parties to confront awkward questions these days.

 

[Aber gas]

The Tories are pretty shocking for this at the moment though I would add the Labour Party aren't innocent in stifling debate, like when they omitted Brexit from their party conference as apparently it's not one of the biggest eight political issues at the moment: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-jeremy-corbyn-momentum-speech-a7965186.html

There seems to be an unwillingness for parties to confront awkward questions these days.

It wasn’t ommited. There was a three hour debate on the main floor. It was one of the go to debates of conference.
Incredible how fake news enters the mainstream.

 

[Laker]

It wasn’t ommited. There was a three hour debate on the main floor. It was one of the go to debates of conference.
Incredible how fake news enters the mainstream.

I'll correct myself. Momentum and the unions did their best to remove it from debate altogether by whipping delegates into promoting eight other issues first for policy votes. It was a form of debate stifling, however you try to spin it!

 

[PuB]

How does the Tory conference work, do party members get a vote?

 

[Aber gas]

I'll correct myself. Momentum and the unions did their best to remove it from debate altogether by whipping delegates into promoting eight other issues first for policy votes. It was a form of debate stifling, however you try to spin it!

Firstly, the priorities were voted on by every member and Labour’s Brexit position has been pretty much settled despite the likes of Chuka crying about it.
Secondly, Momentum has approx 31,000 members and while I’m flattered that you think we have so much power the idea that we could whip delegates in a party of 600,000 is ridiculous.
Finally, it’s our conference and we’ll debate what we like. You don’t see me complaining about the Cambridge AGM not debating border abolition or Trident.
Good day sir.

 

[Laker]

How does the Tory conference work, do party members get a vote?

Of course not. Democracy isn't encouraged.

 

[Abertawe]

They don't have a clue. http://www.cityam.com/274631/shocking-ignorance-mps-dont-know-money-actually-comes/amp

 

[Abertawe]

Sex pests into the mixer.

 

[Jockney]

Firstly, the priorities were voted on by every member and Labour’s Brexit position has been pretty much settled despite the likes of Chuka crying about it.
Secondly, Momentum has approx 31,000 members and while I’m flattered that you think we have so much power the idea that we could whip delegates in a party of 600,000 is ridiculous.
Finally, it’s our conference and we’ll debate what we like. You don’t see me complaining about the Cambridge AGM not debating border abolition or Trident.
Good day sir.

I'm still baffled as to how Momentum would be able to 'whip' any Labour Party member, and what that would look like even if it was possible?